Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

VFW, allies mislead on pay, benefits

Groups like the Military Officers Association of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which oppose the Pentagon’s attempts to rein in rapidly increasing personnel costs, are accusing the Obama administration of balancing the budget on the backs of the men and women who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. MOAA had its members “storm Capitol Hill” last week to urge legislators to block the Pentagon’s proposed reforms.

But close analysis of the proposals from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff reveals that their critics’ arguments are baseless.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The Defense Department’s proposals address the three main components of military compensation: basic pay for current service members, military retirement pensions and health care for military retirees. In FY 2013, these three items are expected to consume about $180 billion, roughly one-third of the base Pentagon budget, and they will eat up the entire defense budget within 20 years if no changes are made.

The Pentagon proposes to reduce the annual pay raise for all military personnel by one-half percent less than the cost of living, beginning in 2015. The reason for this is that Congress, over the objections of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his successor, Robert Gates, increased military basic pay by one half point above the cost of living for the past five years.

Moreover, in deciding on the size of this military pay raise, Congress focused exclusively on base pay. This accounts for only about half of total military cash compensation because it doesn’t include benefits like health care. As a result, total military compensation for the average enlisted person is more than $5,000 above the Pentagon’s standard. Officers are more than $6,000 above accepted levels.

By 2015, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are to have ended, and less than 10 percent of those who served in the conflicts will likely still be on active duty. So the overwhelming majority of combat veterans will not be affected by bringing pay back in line with accepted standards.

In addition, the Pentagon requested the creation of a body similar to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission to reform the military’s expensive and inflexible retirement system. Under this system, the government pays generous lifetime pensions — starting at 50 percent of base pay per year at retirement for those who serve at least 20 years.

Men and women unable or unwilling to serve 20 years get nothing. This creates a perverse incentive structure that punishes those who are not career officers or enlisted personnel — even if they serve in combat. Troops who might be productive for more than 20 years, meanwhile, have every incentive to leave the service.

Readers' Comments (8)

Whether or not the economy is troubled, the DoD budgeted personnel costs are excessive. As the article states, the incentive to remain in the service for 20 years is high, but there is little incentive to serve 4 years, and what Soldier would serve 12 years when only 8 more years will gain a lifetime annuity.

As a servicemember, I don't believe my service, if I remain only 10 years is worth nothing to gain a benefit. Notwithstanding, the folly of paying any 40 year old 50% of their salary for their lifetime when no further work is done, is amazing, especially when some, if not most, Soldiers find another job anyway.

I don't know the solution, but everything must be on the table. In this time, as in any other, every dollar must be valued. We cannot continue to spend as if it doesn't.

Well CPT, as you're well aware, high-3 isn't quite 50%, and oh by the way boot, access to TSP is recent or I could have punched right at 20 with a nice chunk using my own damn money....and before you run your mouth about what military retirees get you may want to research what some government apparatchik sitting in DC gets. You're a tourist anyway, I have no doubt you'll be punching to seek further employment in the GS ranks. Good riddance. No disrespect for the other Soldiers reading this but the use of the term "servicemember" shows just how bureaucratic your organization has become. "Servicemember?" pathetic.

No Revenues = No Sacrifice = No Support = DeJa-Vu all over again!. Now a decade and counting, told to go shopping, added to the previous decades of under funding the VA, while the peoples reps Still try and lay blame on the Agency, after rubber stamping wars and costs of and those represented cheer on these wars!

While the wealthy and other investors garner their booty, still, from both and many have the chutz·pa to call themselves more patriotic{?} then others wrapped in those false flags, using false slogans and various cheap symbols of and then seek one day events or parades to wave all that patriotism, call it "Supporting the Troops", then go home and either ignore or forget about those that actually sacrificed for the country!

USN '67-'71 All Shore GMG3 Vietnam In Country '70-'71

NOBODY...........Has paid for the two present, that's what deficits are, one still ongoing after abandoning the main mission years back, Wars of Choice and not one dime as to the Results of nor is Anyone Demanding To!! While the Wars were off the books, till the present admin. put em back, and everyone condemns the Veterans Administration, especially in Congress and the State Houses! We're still only paying the interest on the billions borrowed!!

Well, I'm glad they "stormed" capitol hill. Because I remember plain as day when I enlisted back in 84 the recruiter saying, among other things that "you and your family will be medically taken care of for free for the rest of your lives". Well, follow through. It's not like I or any other vets are in the same group of takers in this country that pay no taxes but sit around sucking off the government teet. Military life isn't an easy one, and a lot of people do it for not a lot of pay. The retirement (And it's not like it's enough money to kick back and have umbrella drinks all day) and the free medical are advertised by the military as compensation and enticement to compensate for the crappy pay.

If the fat cats in congress, most of whom have never served either, can't find enough money to keep the countrys promises to her vets, then the least they deserve is to have the veterans groups up on capitol hill getting in their faces on a regular basis

Well CPT, as you're well aware, high-3 isn't quite 50%, and oh by the way boot, access to TSP is recent or I could have punched right at 20 with a nice chunk using my own damn money....and before you run your mouth about what military retirees get you may want to research what some government apparatchik sitting in DC gets. You're a tourist anyway, I have no doubt you'll be punching to seek further employment in the GS ranks. Good riddance. No disrespect for the other Soldiers reading this but the use of the term "servicemember" shows just how bureaucratic your organization has become. "Servicemember?" pathetic.

Government employees have already gone to a TSP based, defined contribution system.

Servicemember is the term the Armed Forces are using these days. We got tired of "Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine---Please circle one"

Changes in the retirement system will affect incoming servicemembers, not those already vested in the system. It will be a significant improvement for the majority who do not stay for 20 years which has become a rather arbitrary standard.

Tricare fees were intended to keep pace with inflation. Congress has been delaying the inevitable.

Monday’s opinion editorial by Lawrence Korb, Alex Rothman and Max Hoffman would have readers believe that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is misleading America into believing that the Pentagon’s proposals to reform military compensation, retirement and healthcare are bad for the nation.

As the national commander of America’s oldest and largest combat veterans’ organization, I can guarantee that nothing the VFW says about protecting military pay and benefits is misleading. The Defense Department’s “budget first, people second” proposals are bad for America because they threaten the continued viability of the all-volunteer force. It takes people to fight and win our nation’s wars — to put boots on the ground as well as to operate our ships, planes and tanks. The VFW makes no apologies for wanting to protect those military programs that attract and retain our best and brightest in uniform.

The authors would have you believe that proposed military pay raises between .5 and 1.7 percent over the next five years will help rebalance the budget, yet they make no mention of the affect a resurging economy will have on recruiting and retention, much less the still volatile and unpredictable world that awaits our military of 2015 and beyond. They and others seem to have forgotten the huge recruiting and retention bonuses the military services had to offer just seven short years ago.

It is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to raise, support, and make rules for the regulation of our armed forces. And while DOD input is crucial for informed decisions, Congress must not be rushed into any “up or down” decision, similar to Base Realignment & Closure Commission votes, that could put a professionally-led, all-volunteer force at risk.

Based on earlier trial balloons, DOD wants a new military retirement system that would resemble more participatory, 401(k)-type civilian retirement programs, with the delayed receipt of retirement benefits until almost age 60. Since less than 10 percent of the force stays 20 years or more — not 17 percent as reported by the authors — a civilianized military retirement system will hurt retention because a 401(k)-style retirement plan can be earned virtually anywhere, and in professions far safer than serving in the military.

Congress needs to carefully review and determine the potential impacts of such proposals on the force, because the immediate receipt of retirement pay and inexpensive healthcare for life for the retiree and spouse are the only two incentives the Pentagon offers to entice someone to first donate 20 or more years of their youth to the nation.

Our entire nation faces a health cost crisis, but change advocates want all military dependents and retirees to shoulder more TRICARE health program costs. They cite national averages and what federal civilian employees pay in an attempt to justify plans to more than quadruple TRICARE premiums for some retirees. They call military healthcare and the retirement system “too generous,” with some even referring to these earned benefits as something far more insulting — “entitlements.”

The authors would also have you believe that the Pentagon’s proposals are reasonable and fair, and should be supported by groups like the VFW, the Military Officers Association of America, and other veteran and military service organizations. They even wrote that “Reforming the system of military compensation is necessary — and should be supported by all Americans.”

Yet the authors failed to present the whole picture in their argument. They focus on the overall monetary cost, but not the human cost that first requires decades of faithful service just to qualify — the multiple moves and hazardous deployments; children constantly uprooted from schools and spouses from any semblance of careers; zero home equity; potential age discrimination when applying for post-military employment; and now, being relegated to the expense ledger by the very department that was supposed to have your back.

Only 1.9 million of America’s 22.2 million veterans are military retirees. Their ranks include former military service chiefs and commanders, and exponentially more from the enlisted ranks, the rank and file who also help to define a professionally-led, all-volunteer force. Yet during this budget debate, nobody seems to care about the people side of the equation; they only want to weigh military pay against civilian pay, judge who pays how much for health insurance, and determine who waits how long for their retirement benefits.

Putting the budget ahead of the troops is going to signal an end to the all-volunteer force, which for 39 years and more than a decade of continuous war has served our nation extremely well. That is not a misleading statement; it is a dire warning.

Richard L. DeNoyer, a retired Marine and Vietnam combat veteran from Middleton, Mass., is the national commander of the 2 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.